Debate contribution: Maze/Long Kesh Redevelopment and Investment

Debate contribution by Ms Michelle O'Neill on .

MLA
Ms Michelle O'Neill
Party at the time
Sinn Féin
Date
23 April 2024
Type
Debate contribution (made as a minister)
Business
Adjournment
Heading
Maze/Long Kesh Redevelopment and Investment
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4485729

Text

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I thank the Member for bringing the Adjournment debate and I acknowledge the passionate contributions on the common ground that we all share, which is that this is an opportunity that we must grasp with both hands. Different Members, particularly those who represent the constituency, talked about their family connections and lived experiences. Those things are all important, but, equally, everybody has recognised that this goes much wider than Lisburn or the Lagan Valley constituency. It is a site that has enormous economic, historic and reconciliation opportunities. Those are the things that we have to look to for common ground. To pick up on a phrase that was used, it is time to change the record. I agree — it is time to do this, time to make it happen and time to make the site an enormous catalyst for investment and all that we can achieve. Let us make that our common ground and something to build on from today's debate. Everybody has referenced the amazing strategic potential that the site offers. Some have referred to the fact that it is 347 acres — twice the size of the Titanic Quarter — with around 1 million people living within 30 minutes of it. Again, that speaks to the potential and the opportunity that we have. Members have also said that it has such a strategic location, on a key transport corridor, for access to our airports and ports. That gives the whole site an unparalleled competitive advantage. The catalyst that it can be for development, jobs and investment, and the positive impact that it can bring to local communities, have to be maximised, and we are determined to make sure that that happens. Many Members reflected on the fact that there has been a lot of development on the site. Obviously, there is much more to come. The Balmoral show, which will open again on 15 May, is a hugely popular event that brings much to the site. Thousands of people come to it from all over, and, as someone said, that is not just those from an agricultural and farming background. It goes wider than that and is a fantastic day out for people. That one event showcases all that is good about our agri-food industry and the high-quality food and drink offerings that we have here. The Ulster Aviation Society is one of our top-rated attractions given its number of visitors. Progress has been made on public access to the collection and the hangars. That has all been a good development. The Air Ambulance, such a vital emergency service that we are all very proud of, also operates from the site. It boils down to the fact that, given its location and size, full regeneration of the site will be a catalyst for attracting investment and creating jobs. That can be to the benefit of everybody in this society — everybody whom we, collectively, serve — and that is what I want us to work towards.

I assure the Member who secured the debate that work is being undertaken by the new board and that it is actively looking at how the site might be developed. Plans evolve with the passage of time, and I look forward to the board, in due course, providing us — myself and Emma, the deputy First Minister — with the plans for how it sees the work going forward. The board will provide us with advice and options on how to proceed. As part of that process, the board will also consider the infrastructure that is needed to support those development plans, because there are, obviously, a lot of issues that we will have to deal with, not least the connection to the primary road network and the transport infrastructure, which are prime examples of the things that we will have to invest in. As the site owner, the development corporation has a duty to maintain the listed and retained buildings, which include the former prison complex and the World War II hangars. A programme of continual maintenance is in place, which includes regular condition surveys and the provision of expert advice. The work that is being done is welcome, but we should all be focused on the potential. The deputy First Minister and I will meet the board in the very near future to take stock of the current position and hear its thoughts on the development of the road map for the site. That will inform how we proceed: our next step, what we reach for next and how we will tap into the potential. The scale of the investment that is needed in the site is large, but the options for funding that, based on the plans that are put on the table, will inform the conversation for moving forward. I will leave Members with this thought: we have such a great opportunity at the site, and we are determined to take that opportunity and maximise it for the benefit of all. That is our collective objective, and I look forward to working with all interested Members and with the corporation board to ensure that we make it happen.

868 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not qualifying

Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.

  • Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.04 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
  • None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
  • Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.68).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
  • Subject area: Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism.
  • The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying threshold.

This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.

Jev’s structured answers

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.03No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.01No
Cultural grievance politics0.03No
Dog-whistle messaging0.02No
Controversy escalation0.03No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.68Yes
Overall judgement0.04At or below not-qualifying threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)1.00
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism0.48
No identity-related subject0.32
Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy0.17
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.03
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:20 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification